MOHRU LAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Cawnpore of the case of King-Emperor V/s. Mohru Lal under Secs.408-409, I.P.C., on the ground that the Magistrate of Cawnpore has no jurisdiction to try this case. The charge as actually framed by the Magistrate is that Mohru Lal, between the dates of 10 May and 18 December 1934, being a factor of broker, servant or agent of Matadin Bhagwan Das, did commit criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs. 19,013-5-9 and committed an offence under Secs.408-409, I.P.C. The Magistrate has omitted to put the place of occurrence of the offence. For the accused it is contended that the allegations of the complainant amount to a charge of a commission of an offence somewhere in Bengal and that the Cawnpore Court has no jurisdiction to try such an offence.

(2.) For the complainant the allegation is that the offence can be enquired into in Cawnpore and that the Cawnpore Court has jurisdiction. The allegations in the complaint are that the accused was engaged in Cawnpore as an agent of the firm of Matadin Bhagwan Das, Sugar Merchants of Cawnpore, and that the accused was sent to Bengal with instructions to effect deliveries of sugar bags and to realise the price of goods from customers and either personally bring the proceeds to Cawnpore or remit the money to Cawnpore; that accused did remit large sums to Cawnpore and that the latest date of such remittance was 7 December 1934, and that "subsequently he withheld the moneys collected by him and embezzled." In para. 7 of the complaint the names of nine purchasers are given and the total amount paid by these purchasers, Rs. 19,099, and the allegation is made that the accused realised these amounts and embezzled the sums. The evidence given on behalf of the complainant showed that these sums had been realised by the accused. It was further shown that the accused absconded; and could not be traced. There was no evidence given on behalf of the complainant nor was any allegation made that the accused had actually misappropriated or converted to his own use this money by any positive act. The allegations and evidence of the complainant were that the accused had collected this money and had failed to send it to Cawnpore within a reasonable time. It was also shown that certain of the sums of money in question had been collected by the accused prior to his last remittance on 7 December 1934, and, therefore, the argument was that the accused had misappropriated these sums of money.

(3.) The point of jurisdiction has been argued before us at great length and learned Counsel has contended that the offence, if any, must be taken to have been committed in Bengal. It is contended by learned Counsel that this case might be tried at any of the places in Bengal where it is shown that the accused had collected money. One objection to such an argument is that the mere collection of the money did not amount to a criminal offence. The accused may have been perfectly innocent when he collected this money and his criminal offence occurred later when he failed to remit the money or to bring it to Cawnpore. Now there are various rulings of the Calcutta High Court on which learned Counsel relies. The earliest of these is Gunananda Dhone V/s. Santi Prakash Nandy 1925 Cal 613. In that ruling a. Bench of which Mr. Justice Mukerji was a member laid down two propositions: (1) that where there was an accused person bound to render accounts, the Court which had jurisdiction at the place where the accounts were to be rendered had jurisdiction for an offence of criminal breach of trust, and it was held further (2) that such jurisdiction existed even where there was clear evidence of embezzlement in another place. Later rulings dissented from this latter proposition and in G.N. Pascal V/s. Raj Kishore Mathur 1931 Cal 521, a Bench of two Judges including the learned Chief Justice threw doubts on the correctness of the decision in Gunananda Dhone V/s. Santi Prakash Nandy 1925 Cal 613, but in this case the Bench did not interfere with the continuance of the trial before the Magistrate in Calcutta. In the same volume Paul De Flondor V/s. Emperor 1931 Cal 528, there is again a ruling against the applicant. This ruling is also quoted in Paul De Flondor V/s. Emperor 1931, 59 Cal 92. The ruling proceeds on p. 92 to quote a decision in R. V/s. Davison and Gordon (1853) 7 Cox CC 158, where Baron Alderson stated: Where there is no evidence of fraudulent embezzlement, except the non- accounting, the venue may be laid in the place where the accounting occurred, because the jury may presume that there the fraudulent misappropriation was made, but this cannot apply where there is distinct evidence of the misappropriation elsewhere.